Kodak Only Gets 3 of 5 Stars - Review

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759...129TX1K0000530


Based on my understanding of the review the Canon is faster and offers
higher quality photo results. And the claimed savings in ink costs was
neither proved or disproved.

"measkite" what you write is neither proved or disproved.
Your advice precludes that users have huge sums of money to spend on inks.
Most don't.

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
newszLXh.281$tp5.89@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net.. .
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759...129TX1K0000530
>
>
> Based on my understanding of the review the Canon is faster and offers
> higher quality photo results. And the claimed savings in ink costs was
> neither proved or disproved.
>
When Kodak announced its new EasyShare line of all-in-ones (AIOs), it
garnered a lot of attention. Not only was Kodak venturing into new territory
with AIOs aimed for the home and home office, it claimed its ink prices were
low enough to cut printing costs by up to half compared with the
competition. I tested the first EasyShare AIO-the Kodak EasyShare 5300
All-In-One printer ($200 street)-and the news is largely good. The 5300 may
not be a home run, but it's at least arguably a triple, and that's not bad
for a first time at bat.

Frank Arthur wrote:

> "measkite" what you write is neither proved or disproved.
> Your advice precludes that users have huge sums of money to spend on inks.
> Most don't.
>
> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> newszLXh.281$tp5.89@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net.. .
>
>>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759...129TX1K0000530
>>
>>
>>Based on my understanding of the review the Canon is faster and offers
>>higher quality photo results. And the claimed savings in ink costs was
>>neither proved or disproved.
>>
>
> When Kodak announced its new EasyShare line of all-in-ones (AIOs), it
> garnered a lot of attention. Not only was Kodak venturing into new territory
> with AIOs aimed for the home and home office, it claimed its ink prices were
> low enough to cut printing costs by up to half compared with the
> competition. I tested the first EasyShare AIO-the Kodak EasyShare 5300
> All-In-One printer ($200 street)-and the news is largely good. The 5300 may
> not be a home run, but it's at least arguably a triple, and that's not bad
> for a first time at bat.
>
>

Oh that idiot measher****head never, ever let the truth facts stand in
his way.
Lies, distortion and FUD are a way of life for him.
Frank

"measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
newszLXh.281$tp5.89@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net.. .
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759...129TX1K0000530
>
>
> Based on my understanding of the review the Canon is faster and offers
> higher quality photo results. And the claimed savings in ink costs was
> neither proved or disproved.

Did you actually read the review? If so, exactly where did it say that
Canon offers "higher quality photo results" because I seemed to have missed
that part.

JoJo wrote:

> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> newszLXh.281$tp5.89@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net.. .
>
>>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759...129TX1K0000530
>>
>>
>>Based on my understanding of the review the Canon is faster and offers
>>higher quality photo results. And the claimed savings in ink costs was
>>neither proved or disproved.
>
>
> Did you actually read the review? If so, exactly where did it say that
> Canon offers "higher quality photo results" because I seemed to have missed
> that part.
>
>
Measher****head is a "shill" (a plant) of canons to market their
products in this ng.
They give him candy every time he mentions their name in a favorable manner.
They (canon) haven't sent him any candy for years now as all he ever
does is ruin their good name.
IOW, he's a real jerk!
Frank

Read the part about Editors choice and then read the other reviews their
about Canon.

JoJo wrote:
> "measekite" <inkystinky@oem.com> wrote in message
> newszLXh.281$tp5.89@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net.. .
>
>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759...129TX1K0000530
>>
>>
>> Based on my understanding of the review the Canon is faster and offers
>> higher quality photo results. And the claimed savings in ink costs was
>> neither proved or disproved.
>>
>
> Did you actually read the review? If so, exactly where did it say that
> Canon offers "higher quality photo results" because I seemed to have missed
> that part.
>
>
>

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 09:44:04 -0700, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759...129TX1K0000530
>
>
>Based on my understanding of the review the Canon is faster and offers
>higher quality photo results. And the claimed savings in ink costs was
>neither proved or disproved.

The Kodak printers will cost less than half to operate with their
cheaper ink cartridges.

And as to quality, the resolution of modern printers has long
surpassed the ability of humans to discern the difference.

So, not to worry, the Kodak costs half what a Canon or HP costs.

"Deke" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:sps33350535t7l2207o25bih60mefm3e4b@4ax.com...

> The Kodak printers will cost less than half to operate with their
> cheaper ink cartridges.
[snip]
> So, not to worry, the Kodak costs half what a Canon or HP costs.

Read the article. The ink costs may or may not be better than alternatives,
but seem nowhere near the claimed half cost. I would like to see published
test data (like that at http://www.hp.com/pageyield/us/en/ for the HP units)
for the Kodak units.

- Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging

Bob Headrick wrote:
> "Deke" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:sps33350535t7l2207o25bih60mefm3e4b@4ax.com...
>
>> The Kodak printers will cost less than half to operate with their
>> cheaper ink cartridges.
> [snip]
>> So, not to worry, the Kodak costs half what a Canon or HP costs.
>
> Read the article. The ink costs may or may not be better than
> alternatives,
> but seem nowhere near the claimed half cost. I would like to see
> published test data (like that at http://www.hp.com/pageyield/us/en/
> for the HP units) for the Kodak units.
>
> - Bob Headrick, MS MVP Printing/Imaging

I would also like to see published data that HP is no longer putting
games on their PCs that are sponsored by a known adware company GATOR
with the new name of WILD TANGENT. I had to remove all of that type of
software from a friends computer. I do not think that HP should support
that kind of a company.

Here are links for more info:

http://www.thiefware.com/info/data.gator.shtml

http://www.pchell.com/support/wildtangent.shtml

http://forums.spywareinfo.com/lofive...hp/t82917.html


Now I have nothing against HP products, just their policies and their
support. I still have and use an HP990 and I like it except for the
driver that does cause some intermittent problems. I did upgrade the
driver and it caused more problems so I went back to the factory CD.